Assumption: How we see ourselves and others in the political arena is as important as which issues and policies we choose to support. Problem: We no longer see ourselves as one people (Out of Many, One). We see ourselves as separate and incompatible people (Out of One, Many). We now seem to assume that we are all different people with divided values and separate goals working at cross purposes and that there is no value in working with or collaborating with, “the other side.”
Assumption: A healthy democracy requires its people to think holistically, to see the ‘big picture,’ and to value procedural rules and processes without undermining them for political gain. Problem: We now seem to be willing to manipulate and cheat the system in order to get and maintain political control for ourselves—our party, our cohort, our political agenda. We are now greedy for absolute control and will do anything we can to have it our way and get what we want while virtually saying, “To hell with the others.”
Assumption: The ends should never justify the means. Problem: “Yeah right! Don’t be so naïve!” Is the new attitude about that principle. Republican and Democrat alike fight on with an approach and attitude that virtually says, “We must win at all cost, using every means possible—good or bad, fair or unfair, just or unjust. It’s winning that counts!” Out maneuver, overtake, and overpower the opposing side, take down your opponent however you can, wherever you can; have no mercy and take no prisoners.
Assumption: We want peace, justice, truth, honor, integrity, and things done in the right way and for the right reason. Problem: We are willing to bend the truth and ignore dishonest methods when the truth does not favor our side. If it benefits us, we support unjust and dishonorable methods and welcome unrighteous tactics to get our way. Hypocrites are we all.
Assumption: A people are stronger when they are united in purpose, values, and goals. That is, it is good to find common ground and work through our differences even when it means we must compromise or give-and-take a little. Problem: When we say, “Let us work together,” what we mean is: “Come now, be reasonable and see it MY way!” Compromise is now a dirty word. And to “give-and-take” means, support us all the way or become our enemy.
Assumption: The world, including the environment, international relations, economics, social justice, and human health and welfare is a set of intertwined and complex systems requiring much insight, study, and wisdom for properly applied public and private policies. Problem: We think everything should come down to a KISS: “Keep It Simple Stupid.” We have become simple-minded black-and-white thinkers, refusing to acknowledge the basic complexities, complications, and variations of this thing we call life on earth.
Assumption: The Federal Government should be concerned for what’s best for the nation as a whole and what’s best for all its citizens regardless of social rank, economic status, or geographical location. Problem: There is no cause but that which is personal and local, no reality but that which we personally desire or imagine, and no truth but that which we define to our own liking. It is not about “us and ours—we the people”; it’s about me, my, and mine—versus them, they, and theirs.
Assumption: Democratically elected government officials are not above the law and must be transparent and accountable to the people in all that they do while in office. Problem: We are tolerating an elected president, who refuses to be transparent in crucial areas that may involve conflict-of-interest, respecting his personal and family business affairs. Example: He refuses to release his tax returns. Yet he continues to wield a great amount of power and influence while remaining in the position to personally gain that much more wealth from his private businesses.
Furthermore, he outright rejects the idea of being held accountable for his words and actions, never willing to admit that he misspoke or said something that was just not true.
Assumption: the problems connected with the above assumptions, if not corrected, will inevitably lead to our decline as a nation. And it will be long term, like a frog in slowly warming water—we won’t notice it until it is virtually too late.
Monday, April 24, 2017
Monday, April 17, 2017
First 100 Days in Office: Nonsense!
The President, the Media, Republicans and Democrats alike, they all make a big hoopla over what is done within the first 100 days in office. I say, “What of it!”
So what?”
What’s so important about the first 100 days? Why not the first 50 or 75 or 300?
If I remember my history well enough, it all started with F. D. Roosevelt. It was a good PR scheme on his part, and it stuck. It was his way of boasting about his accomplishments, boasting about how fast and quick, how constructive and productive he was in his, well, his first 100 days in office.
Apparently it’s a measure that’s been used ever since. “Mr. President,” reporters eagerly ask, “what have you, what will you, what do you plan to accomplish in your first 100 days in office?” “Oh, I’m so glad that you asked,” The President replies, “First I plan to do this, then I plan to do that; you’ll see, I’m going to change the world in my first 100 Days in office!” And I say, “Please!! Get real.”
Enough already! It’s manufactured. It’s artificial. There’s nothing magical or extraordinary or super special about a president’s first 100 days in office. It’s a false start, a set-up for media applause or derogation, a meaningless measure when it comes to the real significance of a president’s term of office.
Turn on the news and what do you hear: “It’s now day 51 of the president’s first 100 days…. It’s now day 75 of the first 100 days in office…. We’re now only one week short of the president’s first 100 days in office!” Oh my! The Media refers to these first 100 days with such earnestness that it’s as if it were enchanted, hallowed time to be revered by all.
I for one am tired of this false artificially constructed measure of a President’s success or failure in office.
First of all, it puts ridiculous and unwarranted pressure on the president to show that he (or she) is productive and really getting things done. It can (and often does) lead to sloppy work due to rushed procedures in order to see quick results. And, for an office like the presidency, that’s a bad way to go about getting one’s business done.
Secondly, it is a poor measure for what really counts in the office and work of the presidency. Real time lasting change requires properly applied procedures with adequate processes, along with a substantial amount of patience. In other words, to produce anything of value usually requires a good amount of time. The first 100 days in office just won’t cut it for quality time with an aim toward quality results.
Thirdly, it’s myopic, that is, short-sighted in its perspective. It is probably safe to say that one cannot really measure the quality of the person holding the highest office in the nation until he or she is well into his or her 3rd year of office. Why is this? The first two years in office are essentially formative years, where the office is shaping the individual (as much if not more so than the individual is supposedly shaping the office). Indeed, most presidents who have had the opportunity to hold a second term in office will admit that they did not find their stride, come into the fullness of their office and position, until after they entered their second term of office.
For these reasons and more, the first 100 Days in office is a very poor indicator of how or what or how well the president is, was, or will be doing in office as president.
So I say to the Media, let it go. Stop using it as a marker or a handle to make or present the news of the presidency. It’s a gimmick. We don’t need gimmicks. We have enough of them already. Get real and keep it real. I don’t care about the first 100 days. I care about each and every day, week, and month, especially as they add up and become seasons and years and turn from one term into two terms.
Soon the so-called president’s auspices first 100 days in office will come and go, and it will mean little compared to the next three and half plus years he has left in office. Let’s focus on the big picture and not lose sight of what really counts as the days, months, and years add up. There’s a lot more to the presidency than the mere first 100 Days that the Media seems to be so focused on.
So what?”
What’s so important about the first 100 days? Why not the first 50 or 75 or 300?
If I remember my history well enough, it all started with F. D. Roosevelt. It was a good PR scheme on his part, and it stuck. It was his way of boasting about his accomplishments, boasting about how fast and quick, how constructive and productive he was in his, well, his first 100 days in office.
Apparently it’s a measure that’s been used ever since. “Mr. President,” reporters eagerly ask, “what have you, what will you, what do you plan to accomplish in your first 100 days in office?” “Oh, I’m so glad that you asked,” The President replies, “First I plan to do this, then I plan to do that; you’ll see, I’m going to change the world in my first 100 Days in office!” And I say, “Please!! Get real.”
Enough already! It’s manufactured. It’s artificial. There’s nothing magical or extraordinary or super special about a president’s first 100 days in office. It’s a false start, a set-up for media applause or derogation, a meaningless measure when it comes to the real significance of a president’s term of office.
Turn on the news and what do you hear: “It’s now day 51 of the president’s first 100 days…. It’s now day 75 of the first 100 days in office…. We’re now only one week short of the president’s first 100 days in office!” Oh my! The Media refers to these first 100 days with such earnestness that it’s as if it were enchanted, hallowed time to be revered by all.
I for one am tired of this false artificially constructed measure of a President’s success or failure in office.
First of all, it puts ridiculous and unwarranted pressure on the president to show that he (or she) is productive and really getting things done. It can (and often does) lead to sloppy work due to rushed procedures in order to see quick results. And, for an office like the presidency, that’s a bad way to go about getting one’s business done.
Secondly, it is a poor measure for what really counts in the office and work of the presidency. Real time lasting change requires properly applied procedures with adequate processes, along with a substantial amount of patience. In other words, to produce anything of value usually requires a good amount of time. The first 100 days in office just won’t cut it for quality time with an aim toward quality results.
Thirdly, it’s myopic, that is, short-sighted in its perspective. It is probably safe to say that one cannot really measure the quality of the person holding the highest office in the nation until he or she is well into his or her 3rd year of office. Why is this? The first two years in office are essentially formative years, where the office is shaping the individual (as much if not more so than the individual is supposedly shaping the office). Indeed, most presidents who have had the opportunity to hold a second term in office will admit that they did not find their stride, come into the fullness of their office and position, until after they entered their second term of office.
For these reasons and more, the first 100 Days in office is a very poor indicator of how or what or how well the president is, was, or will be doing in office as president.
So I say to the Media, let it go. Stop using it as a marker or a handle to make or present the news of the presidency. It’s a gimmick. We don’t need gimmicks. We have enough of them already. Get real and keep it real. I don’t care about the first 100 days. I care about each and every day, week, and month, especially as they add up and become seasons and years and turn from one term into two terms.
Soon the so-called president’s auspices first 100 days in office will come and go, and it will mean little compared to the next three and half plus years he has left in office. Let’s focus on the big picture and not lose sight of what really counts as the days, months, and years add up. There’s a lot more to the presidency than the mere first 100 Days that the Media seems to be so focused on.
Monday, April 10, 2017
Extreme Politics, Neither Side Wins in the END
Can we talk? Apparently not, it’s too risky. If I’m on one side and you’re on the other side of the political spectrum, it’s too explosive to talk about our differing views.
Why is that?
We don’t want to hear it. We don’t want to hear our side put down, nor do we want to hear anything good said about the opposing side.
We also don’t want to look dumb and stupid for the views that we hold or for believing what we believe. We don’t want to risk being out argued; fact is, we know what we know, believe what we believe, and that’s that!—no matter how good the other side may argue their point.
Another reason is that it’s just too emotionally draining. The other side makes us so angry, irritating us to no end. We wonder why they can’t see what we see. We’re frustrated at what appears to be nothing less than self-imposed blindness on their part, resulting in what we see as willful ignorance and stubborn stupidity. And so it is emotionally exhausting and taxes every ounce of whatever patience we may think we have.
Another reason is that we may literally lose friends and gain enemies because of our political differences. “Them there words are fighting words; take back what you said!” There are many on the right who can’t stand those on the left and vice-versa.
And finally, though not final, there is no room for and no respect for those in the middle, for those who may see the good as well as the bad of both sides of the political spectrum.
And that is a core problem for us. So for example, few people on the right are willing to see Hillary Clinton as anything less than a witch on a broomstick. And few people on the left are willing to see Donald Trump as anything less than a conceited egotistical trickster that would be laughable if not pitiable if he were not so dangerous, given his position.
We’ve lost the ability to respect people of opposing views. We resort to the total vilification of the opposing side. Furthermore, we no longer see the idea of “working together” as an honorable and valuable approach to partisan politics. We now consider such cooperation between opposing sides as weak and traitorous. We leave ourselves with no room for negotiation.
This can change. WE can change this. But we have to own that this is where we are and embrace the desire to do better than this.
Yet, I don’t see that happening. We are failing to keep this nation balanced and inclusive. We are unwilling to back down from our extreme positions and our extreme demands of the other. The way in which the Senate recently handled the Gorsuch nominee for the Supreme Court position is a blatant and sad example of this failure of ours.
And it is OUR failure, the failure of a nation and its people and the peoples’ representatives. We are sliding downward as a nation in the way we operate as a democracy. It will be years before we see and actually experience the consequences of this downward trend and its terrible effects upon this nation, but they will come. But for the present, we are just too full of ourselves to notice how badly we are actually behaving.
Why is that?
We don’t want to hear it. We don’t want to hear our side put down, nor do we want to hear anything good said about the opposing side.
We also don’t want to look dumb and stupid for the views that we hold or for believing what we believe. We don’t want to risk being out argued; fact is, we know what we know, believe what we believe, and that’s that!—no matter how good the other side may argue their point.
Another reason is that it’s just too emotionally draining. The other side makes us so angry, irritating us to no end. We wonder why they can’t see what we see. We’re frustrated at what appears to be nothing less than self-imposed blindness on their part, resulting in what we see as willful ignorance and stubborn stupidity. And so it is emotionally exhausting and taxes every ounce of whatever patience we may think we have.
Another reason is that we may literally lose friends and gain enemies because of our political differences. “Them there words are fighting words; take back what you said!” There are many on the right who can’t stand those on the left and vice-versa.
And finally, though not final, there is no room for and no respect for those in the middle, for those who may see the good as well as the bad of both sides of the political spectrum.
And that is a core problem for us. So for example, few people on the right are willing to see Hillary Clinton as anything less than a witch on a broomstick. And few people on the left are willing to see Donald Trump as anything less than a conceited egotistical trickster that would be laughable if not pitiable if he were not so dangerous, given his position.
We’ve lost the ability to respect people of opposing views. We resort to the total vilification of the opposing side. Furthermore, we no longer see the idea of “working together” as an honorable and valuable approach to partisan politics. We now consider such cooperation between opposing sides as weak and traitorous. We leave ourselves with no room for negotiation.
This can change. WE can change this. But we have to own that this is where we are and embrace the desire to do better than this.
Yet, I don’t see that happening. We are failing to keep this nation balanced and inclusive. We are unwilling to back down from our extreme positions and our extreme demands of the other. The way in which the Senate recently handled the Gorsuch nominee for the Supreme Court position is a blatant and sad example of this failure of ours.
And it is OUR failure, the failure of a nation and its people and the peoples’ representatives. We are sliding downward as a nation in the way we operate as a democracy. It will be years before we see and actually experience the consequences of this downward trend and its terrible effects upon this nation, but they will come. But for the present, we are just too full of ourselves to notice how badly we are actually behaving.
Monday, April 3, 2017
Behind Health Care Policies
What are the principles, values, and truths behind our health care policies?
Think this through carefully; for, when Republicans say that they want a market driven approach to health care coverage, what truth or value is ultimately being promoted? For example, a market-driven approach to medical coverage results in one immediate truth: only those who can afford health care will get it.
In any market driven economy there will always be the “haves” and the “have-nots.” It now becomes a question of principle. Are there things of which all people, regardless of economic status and/or the ability to pay for it, have a right to receive? So for example: Does everyone have a right to clean drinking water? It’s a simple straightforward question with a yes or no answer. But it’s more complicated than that, isn’t it?
If our answer to the above question is “no,” we are essentially supporting a market system for people’s access to clean drinking water, meaning that only those who can afford it have a right to receive it. That being the case, what we are saying is that only the financially well-off have a right to live—for who can live without access to clean drinking water.
This is the inherent flaw with the promotion of strict Capitalism and the total negation of any policy that we fear smacks of Socialism. In strict capitalism, private property rules the day; there is to be no public ownership for the good of all—no public water, no public land, and/or no public access to various other goods and services—such has medical services. In short, if you cannot afford it, you must go without it—even if the inevitable result of “going without it” is death.
Thankfully we do not live in a strict or absolute capitalistic society. My guess is that there is no country in the world that does. But there are many who believe that we here in the U.S. have swung over, or are in danger of swinging over, too far to the left and have in fact become too socialistic in our economic policies, citing our Social Security benefits as an example, like Medicare and Medicaid, which are commonly called “Entitlements.”
But what are these programs other than an acknowledgment that access to certain basic human resources cannot and should not be left to private means or personal affordability? Indeed, what good is our Constitutional right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness if one has no ability to obtain or is unable to afford access to basic foundational life-sustaining necessities such as pure drinking water, or minimal basic food items, or even clean breathable air?
Before “Obama Care,” our approach to health care basically said this: “If you can’t afford health coverage, you’re out of luck. So, if you’re deathly ill, too bad! Just roll over and die. And do it quickly, if you want to save your family money.” Obama Care tried to soften this a bit, but the underlying truth is still there: only those who can afford health care coverage have a right to receive proper medical help for illnesses so as to live longer and avoid death if at all possible.
This is the crux of the matter. Do we believe that all persons have a right to medical care, especially in life or death situations, or do we believe that only those who can afford it have this right—is it a privilege or a right?
What surprises me is that most Evangelical Christians support the Republican approach, which basically says that health care is a privilege for those who can afford it, not a communal right for all persons, poor or rich. That’s not the Jesus I know.
Think this through carefully; for, when Republicans say that they want a market driven approach to health care coverage, what truth or value is ultimately being promoted? For example, a market-driven approach to medical coverage results in one immediate truth: only those who can afford health care will get it.
In any market driven economy there will always be the “haves” and the “have-nots.” It now becomes a question of principle. Are there things of which all people, regardless of economic status and/or the ability to pay for it, have a right to receive? So for example: Does everyone have a right to clean drinking water? It’s a simple straightforward question with a yes or no answer. But it’s more complicated than that, isn’t it?
If our answer to the above question is “no,” we are essentially supporting a market system for people’s access to clean drinking water, meaning that only those who can afford it have a right to receive it. That being the case, what we are saying is that only the financially well-off have a right to live—for who can live without access to clean drinking water.
This is the inherent flaw with the promotion of strict Capitalism and the total negation of any policy that we fear smacks of Socialism. In strict capitalism, private property rules the day; there is to be no public ownership for the good of all—no public water, no public land, and/or no public access to various other goods and services—such has medical services. In short, if you cannot afford it, you must go without it—even if the inevitable result of “going without it” is death.
Thankfully we do not live in a strict or absolute capitalistic society. My guess is that there is no country in the world that does. But there are many who believe that we here in the U.S. have swung over, or are in danger of swinging over, too far to the left and have in fact become too socialistic in our economic policies, citing our Social Security benefits as an example, like Medicare and Medicaid, which are commonly called “Entitlements.”
But what are these programs other than an acknowledgment that access to certain basic human resources cannot and should not be left to private means or personal affordability? Indeed, what good is our Constitutional right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness if one has no ability to obtain or is unable to afford access to basic foundational life-sustaining necessities such as pure drinking water, or minimal basic food items, or even clean breathable air?
Before “Obama Care,” our approach to health care basically said this: “If you can’t afford health coverage, you’re out of luck. So, if you’re deathly ill, too bad! Just roll over and die. And do it quickly, if you want to save your family money.” Obama Care tried to soften this a bit, but the underlying truth is still there: only those who can afford health care coverage have a right to receive proper medical help for illnesses so as to live longer and avoid death if at all possible.
This is the crux of the matter. Do we believe that all persons have a right to medical care, especially in life or death situations, or do we believe that only those who can afford it have this right—is it a privilege or a right?
What surprises me is that most Evangelical Christians support the Republican approach, which basically says that health care is a privilege for those who can afford it, not a communal right for all persons, poor or rich. That’s not the Jesus I know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)